Mary started it all

[Tiger Al 0]

You say that pedophelia and incest, etc. are abhorent and the general public would never get behind that idea - well, wasn't homosexuality in that same category just ten or twenty years ago.

Laws against homosexual acts were borne out of prejudice. There is no actual crime committed. Pedophilia is a crime, not because it is misunderstood, but because a person, a child, is being forced to engage in sexual acts against his or her will.

But what about my other comment - about the ADULT father/daughter sexual relationship? Pedophilia aside, these were two consenting adults - why shouldn't they be involved, provided that they cannot reproduce - no victim!

My point is simply that there will be exceptions to every rule - for example, in Alabama, I think you can still be married at 14 with a parent's permission - how is that any different than statutory rape or pedophilia? Simple - the law says it's okay. There are bastardizations of every law (no pun intended) but my concern is that we may not be able to see right now all the ways this law could come back to haunt us later, once it gets twisted and manipulated by some plantiff's attorney and some bench-sitting, powerhungry, agenda pushing activist judge.

What are the reasons why you couldn't marry your father, aside from the law? Why is it illegal? Tiger88 has mentioned the scientific reasons regarding having children, but your example is about a childless marriage.

I find it kind of interesting that you have actually facilitated a gay marriage (short of a certificate) but you now seem to be against it. Have you had a genuine change of heart or are you being partisan? When this topic came up, I really expected you to be a conservative voice of reason on the matter since you have at one time endorsed the idea.

[Tiger Al 0]

If we use mine there will be a lot of unhappy people on this board alone. My opinion of remarriage after divorce is that it is commiting adultery.

Not to hijack this thread, but how did you come to this opinion? From reading the Bible or from having that particular doctrine preached to you? But maybe that should be for another thread or board.

Both.

[AURainman 6]

Well, if the quality and worth of your marriage is determined by what other married people have done...you're screwed! With the high divorce rate, single-parent households and enormous rate of infidelity what exactly, using your reasoning, remains of marriage that is worth getting into it? You're going to be in bad enough company as it is, so why bother? When you go to a party or a new job and introduce your wife, aren't you afraid that people will see each of you as an adulterer of the worst kind and you are no more than a deadbeat-dad-in-waiting? You are, after all, married and married people have done those things and you are now guilty by association.

It doesn't work like that.

I admit that infidelity and divorce also corrupt marriage. It is disturbing. I have certain personal beliefs regarding those situations that I would not like to get into.

The quality of my marriage will NOT be determined by others. However, the perception of quality will be lowered. When the norm in this country is to only be married for 10 years before divorce, would you expect me to be married more or less than 10 years? I may say before my family, friends, and God that I promise until "death do us part" but how many people mean that anymore?! Hasn't marriage already become a bit of a joke?! Dont tell me that marriage means as much today as it did 30 years ago.

Gay marriage corrupts a good thing from the start. Infidelity and divorce, etc. are results of people making a mistake AFTER already making a natural choice. However, to enter into the covenant ALREADY having made an unnatural mistake should not be condoned. That is why it makes my stomach turn to see most celebrity weddings. You know that Pamela Anderson is ABUSING marriage. Howard Stern ABUSES marriage. I know before they ever get married that it is the wrong thing to do. I usually predict it lasting 1-2 weeks. Gay weddings, because of their inherent nature, CANNOT be right. There is no way. It is wholy unnatural. No one who is thinking clearly can say that the marriage has ANY hope of being the right choice for those two. Call me narrow-minded, it wouldn't be the first time.

[Tiger Al 0]

Well, if the quality and worth of your marriage is determined by what other married people have done...you're screwed! With the high divorce rate, single-parent households and enormous rate of infidelity what exactly, using your reasoning, remains of marriage that is worth getting into it? You're going to be in bad enough company as it is, so why bother? When you go to a party or a new job and introduce your wife, aren't you afraid that people will see each of you as an adulterer of the worst kind and you are no more than a deadbeat-dad-in-waiting? You are, after all, married and married people have done those things and you are now guilty by association.

It doesn't work like that.

I admit that infidelity and divorce also corrupt marriage. It is disturbing. I have certain personal beliefs regarding those situations that I would not like to get into.

The quality of my marriage will NOT be determined by others. However, the perception of quality will be lowered. When the norm in this country is to only be married for 10 years before divorce, would you expect me to be married more or less than 10 years? I may say before my family, friends, and God that I promise until "death do us part" but how many people mean that anymore?! Hasn't marriage already become a bit of a joke?! Dont tell me that marriage means as much today as it did 30 years ago.

Gay marriage corrupts a good thing from the start. Infidelity and divorce, etc. are results of people making a mistake AFTER already making a natural choice. However, to enter into the covenant ALREADY having made an unnatural mistake should not be condoned. That is why it makes my stomach turn to see most celebrity weddings. You know that Pamela Anderson is ABUSING marriage. Howard Stern ABUSES marriage. I know before they ever get married that it is the wrong thing to do. I usually predict it lasting 1-2 weeks. Gay weddings, because of their inherent nature, CANNOT be right. There is no way. It is wholy unnatural. No one who is thinking clearly can say that the marriage has ANY hope of being the right choice for those two. Call me narrow-minded, it wouldn't be the first time.

I think you're confusing a covenential Christian marriage with what the gays are seeking. As Channon said before, when you go to the courthouse to get married they are not concerned with the covenential aspect of it. It isn't a religious ceremony. Likewise, 10 years later when you are sitting with your attorney across from your wife's attorney the divorce you are pursuing is not a release from your covenential marriage. It is a release from your civil responsibilities (depending on other things) and your obligations to your former spouse. The marriage covenant lasts until one of you dies.

This is why I don't like using the term 'marriage' when talking about this subject because from what I know about it, they are looking for a marriage in the civil sense only. Different churches will determine the validity of their marriage in the religious sense. I'm Catholic and I doubt that a marriage certificate between two people of the same sex will get them any mileage as far as the Church goes. There are some churches that will recognize it.

I may say before my family, friends, and God that I promise until "death do us part" but how many people mean that anymore?!

As far as you're concerned, there should only be two people that mean it-You and your fiancee. Nothing else matters.

[AURainman 6]

I may say before my family, friends, and God that I promise until "death do us part" but how many people mean that anymore?!

As far as you're concerned, there should only be two people that mean it-You and your fiancee. Nothing else matters.

Thanks for the fatherly advice!!!

[Tigermike 3,717]

Although statistics indicate that the vast majority of sexual abuse against children is perpetrated by heterosexual men, it is imperative that child abuse, in all forms, be condemned by gay men and lesbians.

Man on man or man on boy sex is homosexual activity. Maybe that statistic includes all child abuse which would include adult male with female child. Would that not skew the statistic and make it look as if "the vast majority of sexual abuse against children is perpetrated by heterosexual men"? A heterosexual man can not engage in homosexual activity. If they do they are homosexual, correct?

[Tiger Al 0]

Man on man or man on boy sex is homosexual activity.  Maybe that statistic includes all child abuse which would include adult male with female child.  Would that not skew the statistic and make it look as if "the vast majority of sexual abuse against children is perpetrated by heterosexual men"?  A heterosexual man can not engage in homosexual activity.  If they do they are homosexual, correct?

Tigermike, I don't know what methodology was used to come up with the statistics they spoke of. But, it seems like it's very important for you to make the "homosexual=pedophile" connection. Why is that?

From what I've read about pedophilia, it is neither a state of heterosexualness or homosexualness, but rather, a third "plane", if you will. It isn't about male or female, but, about adolescent children whose gender is irrelevant. I don't think the true pedophile says, "I'd love to be with a woman right now, but, I can't, so I think I'll go find a five year old girl instead."

Here's an article about homosexuality and pedophilia that I found pretty interesting.

[Tigermike 3,717]

Man on man or man on boy sex is homosexual activity.  Maybe that statistic includes all child abuse which would include adult male with female child.  Would that not skew the statistic and make it look as if "the vast majority of sexual abuse against children is perpetrated by heterosexual men"?  A heterosexual man can not engage in homosexual activity.  If they do they are homosexual, correct?

Tigermike, I don't know what methodology was used to come up with the statistics they spoke of. But, it seems like it's very important for you to make the "homosexual=pedophile" connection. Why is that?

From what I've read about pedophilia, it is neither a state of heterosexualness or homosexualness, but rather, a third "plane", if you will. It isn't about male or female, but, about adolescent children whose gender is irrelevant. I don't think the true pedophile says, "I'd love to be with a woman right now, but, I can't, so I think I'll go find a five year old girl instead."

Here's an article about homosexuality and pedophilia that I found pretty interesting.

Tigermike, I don't know what methodology was used to come up with the statistics they spoke of. But, it seems like it's very important for you to make the "homosexual=pedophile" connection. Why is that?

It is only important to me in the context of this discussion. And because I abhor any perverted SOB that would harm children in any way! Is that plain enough for you? I am also not making a "homosexual=pedophile" connection. Merely pointing out that the gay & lesbian rights folks are not being honest when making statements like the one I pointed out. All homosexuals are not pedophiles. But neither are all pedophiles heterosexuals.

But can you not see that combining both groups into the statistic would skew the results? They made the statement not me and you quoted what they said.

Although statistics indicate that the vast majority of sexual abuse against children is perpetrated by heterosexual men, it is imperative that child abuse, in all forms, be condemned by gay men and lesbians.

Do you agree with that statement as it is written or do you see the possibility that it could be skewed by not separating the incidents by gender?

From what I've read about pedophilia, it is neither a state of heterosexualness or homosexualness, but rather, a third "plane", if you will. It isn't about male or female, but, about adolescent children whose gender is irrelevant. I don't think the true pedophile says, "I'd love to be with a woman right now, but, I can't, so I think I'll go find a five year old girl instead."

There are homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles. If they like boys rarely do they cross over and seek girls. The ones who like girls rarely seek boys.

I don't think the true pedophile says, "I'd love to be with a woman right now, but, I can't, so I think I'll go find a five year old girl instead."

You are absolutely right they don't want women, they want little girls or they want little boys. They don't think about women, they think of little girls. OR they think of little boys not men? Pedophilia is about power and fear. The pedophile wants the feeling of power mainly because they are fearful of adult relationships. They are damncowards!

That third plane you talk about is children. Don't try to make it seem as if they just wake up one morning and pick up a child and the gender does not matter. They pick, they pick either boys or girls whatever their preference is. But they pick children! And they stalk children! And they are predatory toward children! Personally I don't think there should be jail time for pedophiles. They should be taken out and hung ASAP. Give them a quick trial and then hang their sorry butts.

I might also ask why you feel it so necessary to defend homosexuals and pedophiles but I wont.

[Tiger Al 0]

But can you not see that combining both groups into the statistic would skew the results? They made the statement not me and you quoted what they said. Do you agree with that statement as it is written or do you see the possibility that it could be skewed by not separating the incidents by gender?

Again, I don't know what methodology was used to honestly conclude that the results are skewed.

I don't think that if a pedophile molests a boy he is homosexual whereas if he molests a girl he is heterosexual. The gender of the victim doesn't matter. A pedophile may have a gender preference, but, I don't think it would matter as much as the fact that it was a child.

I might also ask why you feel it so necessary to defend homosexuals and pedophiles but I wont.

I don't think I ever gave the impression that I was defending pedophiles. As far as homosexuals go, I defend against discrimination and marginalization of them where laws are concerned. I also don't like stereotypes.

[Tigermike 3,717]

I also don't like stereotypes.

But you don't mind sterotyping others.

[Tiger Al 0]

I also don't like stereotypes.

But you don't mind sterotyping others.

Who have I stereotyped?

[CarolinaTiger 0]

well, i've been away from this thread for quite a while (page-wise, anyay), and i'm not sure i have the energy to respond to a couple of posts i made...

but...

i gotta quesiton a couple of things:

in response to titan's question,

are they wanting the approval of society on their relationship by having it called a "marriage" or do they simply want to have the benefits that marriage provides (hospital visitation/medical decisions, inheritance laws, power of attorney, etc)?

TA/Chann said you feel they want the legal/statutory benefits of marriage.

if that were the case, can't most (if not all) these things be achieved already through seeing a lawyer? gay couples have already legally adopted children, haven't they?

i believe most gays desperately want the approval of society for their lifestyle...and this stems from a moral desire, not a legal desire (i add this based on TA's response to my most recent post on this thread).

chann states ...

Wouldn't you rather see a gay couple make that commitment rather than not?

yet, chann, why does a homosexual couple have to be 'legally joined' in order to be committed to each other? can't they just say to each other (& to whomever else they want to) that they're committed to each other? the answer, of course, is 'yes'. as we see in hetero relationships, the certificate doesn't make the 'commitment' permanent.

so, IF its gays' desire to simply have the legal rights afforded to straight couples, they can achieve that through other means, without having to be married or civilly united *is civilly a word..it looks a little silly*...unless it's that marriage tax penalty they're after :roll:

and IF that's the case, why did we see people flock to the san fran courthouses, and in some cases, get all dressed up and "play marriage"? was it , "oh boy!!! we get lots of legal rights now!!!". i hardly think so.

[texaubie 0]

Pedophilia is about power and fear. The pedophile wants the feeling of power mainly because they are fearful of adult relationships. They are damncowards!

You hit the nail on the head with this statement. Pedophilia is not about sex its about power. If you are homo or hetero, that choice is about sex. Labeling a pedophile as either a hetero pedo or a homo pedo is wrong, IMO. Pedo's are simply animals and I agree with your punishment - hang 'em and be done with 'em. However, I think its wrong to label them as either homo or hetero.

Equating homosexuality to pedophilia is the same as equating heterosexuality to rape. Apples and oranges...

[CarolinaTiger 0]

CT, if tomorrow it were decreed that in every state, county, city and municipality homosexual marriage was lawful, how does that change your life? In what way are you and/or your marriage affected? What is the threat to you?

What is it that you believe in that is disregarded as being 'wrong?' That homosexuality is wrong? Then don't engage in homosexual acts. That homosexual marriage is wrong? Then don't marry a man. If you don't do things that you believe are wrong, then you'll emerge victorious every time.

IMO, you're only wrong when you start trying to hoist your 'standards' onto other people in the name of religious morality.

TA: you seem to be intimating that, as long as "it" (whatever it is) doesn't affect me, then why should i care? that's a pretty selfish philosophy.

i am personally unaffected by lots of things -- therefore i shouldn't care about them? to what extreme do you carry this philosophy? if you, TA, are not gay, then why do you even care whether gay marriage is legalized or not? you won't be affected. and that's your viewpoing, then great...you can dismiss yourself from this (and a lot of other) threads, can't you?

and w.r.t. the last paragraph quoted above, who's doing the hoisting in this scenario? that paragraph is offensive to me.

ct

[channonc 466]

chann states ...

Wouldn't you rather see a gay couple make that commitment rather than not?

yet, chann, why does a homosexual couple have to be 'legally joined' in order to be committed to each other? can't they just say to each other (& to whomever else they want to) that they're committed to each other? the answer, of course, is 'yes'. as we see in hetero relationships, the certificate doesn't make the 'commitment' permanent.

Well, I could easily turn it around on you, if you are married, why did you marry the person. You could have very easily just gone to an attorney and given her power of attorney, rights to your estate, rights to any children you both had together, etc.

You wanted to get married b/c you wanted to express that committment to that person formally and in front of family and friends, along with getting legal rights.

Other than it being "unnatural" or "immoral" as some have stated, what is your reasons for not wanting these couples to have the same rights? Like I said, just b/c something is legal doesn't mean you have to participate or condone it. Many disapprove of drinking or smoking, yet those things are legal.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Charles Caleb Colton once said, "Corruption is like a ball of snow, once it's set a rolling it must increase". I strongly believe this holds true for moral corruption as well. If gay marriage is legalized, which group will come forward next wanting the same deal the gays received?

Even though these acts may not be happening on my front doorstep, I have every right to say this is wrong not only by my standards but of those of Christian civilization as a whole. I refuse to accept their behavior as normal.

[Tigermike 3,717]

Charles Caleb Colton once said, "Corruption is like a ball of snow, once it's set a rolling it must increase". I strongly believe this holds true for moral corruption as well. If gay marriage is legalized, which group will come forward next wanting the same deal the gays received?

Even though these acts may not be happening on my front doorstep, I have every right to say this is wrong not only by my standards but of those of Christian civilization as a whole. I refuse to accept their behavior as normal.

And that is what they want, legitimization. They are looking for acceptance of their actions. Most in this thread have skirted around the religious aspect of this issue. Al once threw in that he thought marriage after divorce was a sin. I would counter and say Al marriage after divorce is not a sin, DIVORCE is the sin. But to stick to this thread I will ask how can you say that divorce and remarriage is a sin and over look the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality? It seems that you want Christianity Cafeteria Style. Just go through the line and pick and choose what you want. Agree with what you want as long as it does not make anyone feel "marginalized",

channonc

Well, I could easily turn it around on you, if you are married, why did you marry the person. You could have very easily just gone to an attorney and given her power of attorney, rights to your estate, rights to any children you both had together, etc.

You wanted to get married b/c you wanted to express that committment to that person formally and in front of family and friends, along with getting legal rights.

I would have to say that for Christians going "to an attorney and given her power of attorney, rights to your estate, rights to any children you both had together, etc."

is not an option. They marry in the sight of God. A marriage license is obtained in order for the State to be satisfied legally. Except for getting a marriage license before the wedding, the legal aspects are not of paramount importance.

[channonc 466]

I would have to say that for Christians going "to an attorney and given her power of attorney, rights to your estate, rights to any children you both had together, etc." is not an option. They marry in the sight of God. A marriage license is obtained in order for the State to be satisfied legally.

I would agree with you on a religious level. However, states rights aren't given out based on religion. We are a secular society and government that are based on Judeo-Christian principles, not doctrne.

Me approving of state gay marriages doesn't mean that I approve of the lifestyle. Like Al said, he disapproves of divorce, but that doesn't mean he thinks it should be illegal.

Mike, the fact that you highlighted your Christianity for me proves the point. I want them to be able to get a marriage license. I do not approve of the state saying that a particular church HAS to perform the ceremony. While I am Christian and the majority of those on this board are Christian, realize that many in this country are not. I, as a Christian, planning on getting married in a church and expressing those vows before God and my husband to be.

My point is that that has nothing to do with the rights and privlages that are awarded to married couples by the state. They are totally separate. I think that gay couples should be able to go down and get the same license and be awarded the same rights as a couple that a heterosexual couple receives.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

Well, I could easily turn it around on you, if you are married, why did you marry the person. You could have very easily just gone to an attorney and given her power of attorney, rights to your estate, rights to any children you both had together, etc.

You wanted to get married b/c you wanted to express that committment to that person formally and in front of family and friends, along with getting legal rights.

thanks for the response, chann...that's exactly the response i expected, btw.

my responses to the 'turn the table' argument probably won't be to your liking, but here goes.

1. we aren't talking about 'straight' marriages here, we're talking about gay unions. anything to do w/ 'straight' marriages is irrelevant. the appropriateness of a man & woman getting married isn't being challenged or questioned. that's an institution that's been around for centuries. yet, you are right in your assessment. i certainly could have gone and done the 'legal' stuff only, but i absolutely wanted to express my commitment in front of my family/friends, etc. i wanted to get "married". yet again, that's not relevant to the issue at hand. we're discussing gay "marriage" or unions.

2. not totally unrelated to #1, marriage is between a man and a woman. in fact, the very definition of the word dictates as much. gay couples can't get married because they're different. the very thing that makes them different from 'straight' couples is also the very reason they can't get married, even as much as they wish they could. if homosexuals weren't different, then they wouldn't be gay and wouldn't be precluded from getting married. redefine the word if it makes you feel better, but it won't change the fact that marriage is between a man & a woman, and therefore a same-sex couple cannot truly 'married'.

<<as an aside, your argument underminds your statement that gays simply want the legal benefits similar to what straight couples get. if that were true, then we wouldn't be having the discussion we're having (here on this board and nationally). if that were true, then why did we see people flock to san francisco over the course of the past few weeks, many of whom got all dressed up and 'pretended' marriage. nothing prevents a gay couple from commiting to each other and/or getting the legal things taken care of...yet, they choose to pursue "marriage". why?...>>

Other than it being "unnatural" or "immoral" as some have stated, what is your reasons for not wanting these couples to have the same rights?

first off, this statement could use some tightening up a bit. i'm not sure which side of the fence i fall on as far as 'same rights', except to object to the word 'rights'. marriage isn't a right, otherwise, all the ugly single people in the world would be suing. there are privileges afforded married couples, and if you're talking about those, then as i said before, i'm still undecided.

yet, i'll address the question i think you're asking. 'other than the fact that you think that the lifestyle itself is wrong, why do you oppose the gay lifestyle/gay marriage rights"? or, put another way, "name 73 reasons you're opposed to ...". :roll:

Like I said, just b/c something is legal doesn't mean you have to participate or condone it.  Many disapprove of drinking or smoking, yet those things are legal.

ahh, you & TA w/ the "if it doesn't affect you, then why do you care" stance. i admit, it sounds great. and, just as you started this post off by turning the tables, i could ask you the same question, couldn't i?

but rather than simply ignore your question, here, in short, is why i oppose the advancement of anything that perpetuates the notion that homosexuality is normal:

i believe the homosexual lifestyle will lead someone straight to hell. now, given yours & TA's mindset, as long as that someone isn't me or my kid, then why care, right? yet, if you believe as i do, then you care. to the extent that 'legalizing gay marriages/unions' promotes the notion that homosexuality is a valid option for a 'normal' lifestyle, then i oppose that stance.

i suppose that it is at this point that TA should attack my belief system again as fostering "little fears" .

ct

[stoic-one 1,588]

Marriage isn't a right, otherwise, all the ugly single people in the world would be suing.

OMG, that just struck me as very funny.......

[Tigermike 3,717]

Here is another opinion.

San Francisco and Islamists: Fighting the same enemy

Dennis Prager

March 2, 2004

America is engaged in two wars for the survival of its civilization. The war over same-sex marriage and the war against Islamic totalitarianism are actually two fronts in the same war -- a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization.

One enemy is religious extremism. The other is secular extremism.

One enemy is led from abroad. The other is directed from home.

The first war is against the Islamic attempt to crush whoever stands in the way of the spread of violent Islamic theocracies, such as al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranian mullahs and Hamas. The other war is against the secular nihilism that manifests itself in much of Western Europe, in parts of America such as San Francisco and in many of our universities.

America leads the battle against both religious and secular nihilism and is hated by both because it rejects both equally. American values preclude embracing either religious extremism or radical secularism. As Alexis de Tocqueville, probably the greatest observer of our society, wrote almost 200 years ago, America is a unique combination of secular government and religious (Judeo-Christian) society.

Not only has this combination been unique, it has been uniquely successful. America, therefore, poses as mortal a threat to radical secularism as it does to Islamic totalitarianism. Each understands that America's success means its demise.

This is a major reason why the Left so opposes anti-Islamism (just as it opposed anti-communism). In theory, the Left should be at least as opposed to the Islamists as is the Right. But the Left is preoccupied first with destroying America's distinctive values -- a Judeo-Christian society (as opposed to a secular one), capitalism (as opposed to socialism), liberty (as opposed to equality) and exceptionalism (as opposed to universalism, multiculturalism and multilateralism). So, if the Islamists are fellow anti-Americans, the Left figures it can worry about them later.

All this explains why the passions are so intense regarding same-sex marriage. Most of the activists in the movement to redefine marriage wish to overthrow the predominance of Judeo-Christian values in American life. Those who oppose same-sex marriage understand that redefining the central human institution marks the beginning of the end of Judeo-Christian civilization.

Let us understand this redefinition as clearly as possible:

With same-sex marriage, our society declares by law that mothers are unnecessary, since two men are equally ideal as mothers and as the creators of a family; and that fathers are unnecessary, since two women are equally ideal as parents and as the creators of a family.

With same-sex marriage, our society declares that there is nothing special or even necessarily desirable about a man and a woman bonding. What is sacred to the proponents of same-sex marriage is the number of people marrying (two, for the time being), not that a man and woman bond.

With same-sex marriage, when taught in school about sex, marriage and family, children will have to be taught that male-male and female-female sex, love and marriage are identical to male-female sex, love and marriage. And when asked, "Who do you think you will marry when you grow up?" thanks to the ubiquitous images of media, far more children will consider members of the same sex.

With same-sex marriage, no adoption agency will ever be able to prefer a married man and woman as prospective parents. Aside from the tragedy of denying untold numbers of children a mother and a father, this will lead to a drastic diminution in women placing children for adoption, since most of these women will prefer something that will then be illegal -- that agencies place her child with a man and woman, not with two men or two women.

With same-sex marriage, any media -- films, advertisements, greeting cards -- that only depict married couples as a woman and a man will be considered discriminatory and probably be sued.

With same-sex marriage, those religious groups that only marry men and women will be deemed beyond the pale, marginalized and ostracized.

There have been many Christian countries, and they are no longer. They have been replaced by secular countries, and they are weakening. Only American civilization remains strong, and it does so because of its unique amalgam of values rooted in Judeo-Christian morality.

This civilization is now fighting for its life -- as much here as abroad. Join the fight, or it will be gone as fast as you can say "Democrat."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisp...p20040302.shtml

[Weagle98 119]

Gay people do have a right to get married. No one is stopping them. Of course they have to get married to someone of the opposite sex. So don't they technically have equality.

[TitanTiger 21,241]

In light of all we've talked about regarding what could become legal, whether it was likely, and so on, this article is rather interesting (and gross):

INCREASING PROBLEM: Swedes have more and more animal sex

Av Øyvind Ludt  og Carin Pettersson

26.01.04 12:24

Animal sex is not illegal in Sweden, and every year between 200 and 300 pets are injured because of sexual assaults. 

The estimate was presented by Svenska Veterinärforbundet, the Swedish veterinary organization, and it is now trying to make the authorities and the public more aware of animals’ suffering. The organization claim the problem has increased during the last couple of years, even if most people are unaware of it. 

“We have seen an increase since 1999 when child pornography became illegal,” said Johan Beck-Friis. “It appears, in other words, as there are some people who have replaced children with animals. In both circumstances, it is sex with defenceless individuals.”

The injuries inflicted on animals after sexual assaults are of the same character of those children get. Beck-Friis said that the most common injuries are wounds on the sex organs and blisters. 

Animal porn

The fact that animal sex is becoming an increasing problem can be indicated by the mere fact that there is an increasing selection of animal porn at video rentals and there an increasingly number of websites with animal pornography is surfacing. 

No one knows for sure how many animals that are abused, but a British study from 2001 indicates that every 20th dog or cat that receives treatment at veterinaries, the injuries are not a result of a direct accident, but the animal has been inflicted the injury as a result of a sexual assault. 

According to the Swedish paper Expressen, if the same estimate can be used in Sweden that will indicate that 200 to 300 dogs and cats every year are injured as a result of sexual assaults. 

Not illegal

In contrast with most other countries, animal sex is not illegal in Sweden. It was decriminalized in 1944 in connection with the decriminalization of homosexual sex. 

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article177749.ece

[Tigermike 3,717]

Swedes have more and more animal sex

That is just not right!

Should I say it again?

[Tigermike 3,717]

Is this the slipery slope Al was talking about.

Not illegal

In contrast with most other countries, animal sex is not illegal in Sweden. It was decriminalized in 1944 in connection with the decriminalization of homosexual sex.

Then

“We have seen an increase since 1999 when child pornography became illegal,” said Johan Beck-Friis. “It appears, in other words, as there are some people who have replaced children with animals. In both circumstances, it is sex with defenceless individuals.”